Hill v. State
2017 Ark. 196
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Jessie Hill, convicted of capital murder in 1995, filed a 2016 petition in the trial court seeking the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory materials related to his case.
- The trial court denied Hill’s petition (May 12, 2016) and counted the denial as a “strike” under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-68-607.
- Hill moved for reconsideration (May 24, 2016), citing a recent Arkansas Supreme Court decision; the trial court denied reconsideration and imposed a second strike as frivolous.
- Hill appealed the reconsideration denial and sought an extension of time to file a reply brief in this Court.
- After briefing, this Court noted Hill had already obtained the lab materials from Hill v. Gallagher, so the petition relief portion of the appeal was moot.
- The remaining live issue was whether § 16-68-607 (the “strike” statute) applies in criminal proceedings and whether the two strikes imposed were proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hill’s appeal as to the requested lab materials is moot | Hill sought lab materials; argued trial court erred in denying relief | State contended denial was proper (but materials later provided) | Moot as to the petition because Hill already received the materials; no need to decide trial-court error on that relief |
| Whether Ark. Code Ann. § 16-68-607 authorizes strikes in criminal proceedings | Hill argued the statute does not apply to criminal proceedings and strikes were improper | State argued the proceedings were civil in nature despite being filed in a criminal case, so statute could apply | § 16-68-607 applies only to civil actions and proceedings; it does not authorize strikes in criminal cases; the two strikes were improperly imposed and those orders were void |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Gallagher, 491 S.W.3d 458 (Ark. 2016) (construing § 16-68-607 and applying civil-procedure context)
- Waller v. Kelley, 493 S.W.3d 757 (Ark. 2016) (standard for reviewing motion-to-dismiss context used for strikes)
- Stehle v. Zimmerebner, 497 S.W.3d 188 (Ark. 2016) (discussing civil vs. criminal nature of contempt proceedings)
- State v. Thomas, 439 S.W.3d 690 (Ark. 2014) (statutory-interpretation standard: review de novo)
- Foster v. Foster, 506 S.W.3d 808 (Ark. 2016) (court’s role in determining statutory meaning)
- Arkansas Public Defender Commission v. Greene County Circuit Court, 32 S.W.3d 470 (Ark. 2000) (discussing what may constitute a civil matter for sovereign-immunity waiver)